During the second millenium B.C.E.the Hittites, a group of people
who spoke an Indo-European language, established an empire, Hattusa,
centered in north-central Anatolia (the Asian part of modern-day
Turkey). The empire reached its height in the 14th century B.C.E.,
but by the 12th century B.C.E. had broken up into a number of
independent Neo-Hittite city-states. By the beginning of the first
millenium B.C.E. a number of the Neo-Hittites states were being
overrun by “roaming” Aramean tribes who spoke a Semitic language,
Aramaic.

Accounts from the ninth century B.C.E., mainly Neo-Assyrian, depict
the Aramean tribes either wrestling with Luwian/Hittite kings for
their territories, or joining together with them in an effort to
stave off the Assyrian conquest. In the famous battle of Qarqar in
853 B.C.E. a coalition of Neo-Hittite and Aramean kings, which also
included king Ahab of Israel, formed an anti-Assyrian alliance
against Shalmaneser III.

It was about this same time, the mid-ninth century, that the Aramean
kings began to produce their own written records, though few would
survive. Unlike Assyrian and Babylonian cuneiform, the Arameans
wrote with an alphabet used mainly on papyrus or animal skin. Such
perishable materials can survive only in the most arid climates such
as that of Egypt or Judean desert, but not in the rainier regions
where the Aramean kingdoms emerged. Therefore little of Aramaic
literature from before the Persian period has survived except for
those inscribed on stone in funerary and architectural monuments.
The monumental inscriptions of these early Aramean kings make up the
bulk of Iron Age Aramaic Literature.

The Semitic language of the Aramean inscriptions, as with their
other cultural traditions displays a blend of Syrian, Anatolian and
Phoenician elements. The Hittite influence was particularly evident
in traditions of royal administration, monumental scultpture and
literature. The gods seem to have remained Semitic, at least in
name, though Hittite counterparts were often recognized for Semitic
deities. Several of the early Aramean inscriptions are reminiscent
of Hittite courtly literature known from the Late Bronze Age. The
Hittites had two writing systems: a form of Akkadian Cuneiform
adapted for their Indo-European Hittite, and an indigenous
hieroglyphic system called Luwian.

The Arameans borrowed much from the Neo-Hittites especially in terms
of royal and administrative practice. But their Canaanite/
Phoenician alphabet they borrowed from a near-by Semitic culture.
Some of the earliest Aramean monumental inscriptions, such as those
from Sam'al are written in Phoenician with many Aramaic elements.
Although they use the Phoenician alphabet instead of Luwian
Hieroglyphics their habit of sculpting the letters in bas relief so
that they stand out from the stone, imitates the Luwian
inscriptions. Most other Aramean inscriptions of the period are
scratched directly into the stone.

A number of interrelated inscriptions have survived from the Aramean
kingdom of Sam'al, modern Zinjirli. These inscriptions enable us to
trace the general outline of its dynastic history and as well as the
development of its hybrid Phoenician / Aramaic dialect called
Sam'alian.

The literary structure of the Sam'alian monumental inscriptions
follows older Syrian and Anatolian traditions. The elements of the
form, whether memorial or dedicatory, are dictated by the usual
preoccupations of ancient princes and generally bear some of the
following features.

1. The first priority is to assert their legitimacy of claim to the
throne, of which heredity is the usual basis. They may also want to
emphasize their worthiness occupying the throne vis-a-vis their
predecessors. This often involves not merely being on par with
ancestors but quite surpassing them in any of their featured
achievements. It is also crucial to be specially favored by the
gods, all the more in cases where dynastic lineage is questionable.

2. Two important tests of their royal quality will be to secure the
safety and order of the kingdom first by vanquishing foreign enemies
all around and, then by pacifying or dispatching rival claimants and
other internal enemies to the throne.

3. Then follows a description of the golden days of their rule,
their own greatness and wealth as well as the well being of their
subjects. They may claim to have established measures of social
justice, economic prosperity or other benefits to the subjects. Of
course, it may have been propaganda, but could have ramifications
for the very real threat of rival claimants. In such patrimonial
systems the subjects, whether well fed or disgruntled could
influence the outcome of palace conspiracies and succession
disputes.

4. Another type of achievement often mentioned is the occasion for
the inscription itself, namely building projects. Fortifications,
gates, temples and palaces all facilitate a primitive sort of
temple-palace bureaucracy by which these Iron Age kings governed.

5. The inscription will generally conclude with stern instructions
for the preservation of the inscription itself or some aspect of the
king's life and the accomplishments the inscription symbolizes. It
may instruct the reader on the proper feeding of the king in the
afterlife, as with Panamu I. Or it may specify how successors are to
uphold his policy after him, and thereby preserve the prosperity it
achieved for the subjects. One fascinating dimension of the Samalian
royal inscriptions is the way several of the same formulaic elements
remain in place while the language, rhetoric and historical
circumstances change.